Rand Paul's Anger at Markwayne Mullin Is Justified

"He can't bring himself to say we shouldn't settle political questions with violence," said Paul.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R–Okla.) might have been expecting to sail through the Senate and ultimately be confirmed as outgoing Secretary Kristi Noem's replacement at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). But there's a senator from his own party standing in his way, and that senator has an extremely legitimate grievance.

Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), chair of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, squared off against Mullin during a tense hearing on Wednesday. Paul castigated Mullin for having previously made light of the brutal beating of Paul in 2017, when his neighbor attacked him. As Reason's Jacob Sullum noted in his own coverage, Paul sustained serious injuries, including six broken ribs, and had to have part of his lung removed. Yet Mullin previously said that Paul is a "freaking snake" and that "I understand completely why his neighbor did what he did."

Paul began the hearing by referencing these remarks and gave Mullin a chance to explain himself and apologize. Mullin should have said something like this: It was a heated moment, and I misspoke. I should never have appeared to make excuses for violence against you. That was bad judgment on my part, and I profoundly apologize.

Instead, Mullin very specifically declined to apologize. "I am not apologizing for pointing out your character," he said.

Paul: "You offered no apology…I haven't heard I misspoke, and I was heated, and I made a mistake."

Mullin: "I actually wasn't heated, and I'm not apologizing for pointing out your character."

Paul: "So…you want the American public and the people up here that may or may not… pic.twitter.com/T5pquFWhOs

— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) March 18, 2026

Lest anyone think Paul is making a mountain out of a mole hill, consider the outrage that would have ensued had Mullin made light of violence against any other conservative or Republican figures. For instance, imagine if Mullin had said that while he did not endorse the murder of Charlie Kirk, he understood completely why the assassin did what he did. Imagine that he steadfastly refused to apologize for saying so. Presumably, that would be the end of Mullin's ambitions to serve as secretary of the DHS.

Nor does this appear to be some kind of one-off incident. Mullin also infamously threatened International Brotherhood of Teamsters President Sean O'Brien during a tense committee hearing in 2023. The fact that O'Brien and Mullin later reconciled and became friends is beside the point: Members of the Senate should not routinely escalate their disputes to the point of violence.

Mullin, however, clearly seems to think otherwise. In his argument with Paul this week, he favorably referenced the fact that politicians in the 19th century did occasionally duel each other to death.

Rand Paul: "The fact he can't bring himself to say that we shouldn't settle political questions with violence, I think that would be a terrible example for ICE and Border Patrol" pic.twitter.com/081Kd7h0oQ

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 18, 2026

Paul found this particularly disqualifying and indicated he would vote against Mullin.

"The fact that he can't bring himself to say we shouldn't settle political questions with violence, I think that would be a terrible example for ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and our border control agents," said Paul.

He's absolutely right. The DHS is an important law enforcement body, and it should be run by someone with a professional temperament. A hothead who wants to fight everybody who crosses him and longs for the days when men could get in arguments and then shoot each other with pistols—something that even most people in the 19th century thought was barbaric—is absolutely the wrong choice to lead the department.

Mullin could not even bring himself to do the bare minimum and say he was sorry about the remark. That's disqualifying behavior.

---

This Week on Free Media

I'm joined by Amber Duke to discuss Paul Ehrlich's anti-family legacy, the CIA vs. Tucker Carlson, and more.

---

Worth Watching

We have a trailer for Dune: Part Three! It looks good, but I am disappointed they're marketing this as the third and final film. Why not go a little further and adapt my favorite book in the series—the one with a giant talking sandworm person?

Comments

[Dillinger]

this place requires a total revamp. or I don't belong idk

[Leo Kovalensky II]

It's the latter.

A "C" on liberty is barely a passing grade.

https://libertyscore.conservativereview.com/markwayne-mullin
https://libertyscore.conservativereview.com/rand-paul

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

Wonder if Robbie agrees with Paul using his position behind closed doors to try and sink Mullin.

[Leo Kovalensky II]

I don't know what you're on about now, but if true this is shocking. It would likely be the first time a politician did some maneuvering "behind closed doors" to accomplish something.

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

I get it Leo. You cant think for yourself. You have blind allegiance to those who youre told to support. No critical thinking required from you. Never allowed to criticize those youre told to support. Just blind and retarded loyalty without thought.

You can find what Paul was doing behind the scenes by looking for it. It was even posted yesterday.

I love how you pretend certain people, Including yourself, are so pure without fault then get so mad when pointed out you have the same flaws you claim to hate lol. Shows you have no real principles or morals. Just a midwit repeating narratives.

Instead of allowing senators to have their say, you defend Paul using his committee powers to try to crush someone he hates before it gets to a vote lol. True principles Leo. Fucking moron.

[Leo Kovalensky II]

You're right. This is utterly shocking! Rand Paul is using his committee powers to try to stop a candidate from moving forward!??! Utterly shocking! Seriously, this must be the first time this has happened.

Next you're going to tell me he's holding a grudge because this guy defended his attacker or something.

[Leo Kovalensky II]

I should add, if recent events have taught us anything, it's that DHS agents could use a little more "anger issues" from their leadership. They just don't seem angry enough in their interactions with the public. Hopefully Markwayne brings some of that leadership with him.

[Lester75]

What happens when they go to the wrong address and throw you out in the snow in your underwear? Yes sir I love violence…thank you.

[Square = Circle]

O'Brien and Mullin later reconciled and became friends

O'Brien recognized a kindred spirit.

[BYODB]

Yeah, honestly that's just one more mark against this jackhole.

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

Mullin also infamously threatened International Brotherhood of Teamsters President Sean O'Brien during a tense committee hearing in 2023. The fact that O'Brien and Mullin later reconciled and became friends is beside the point: Members of the Senate should not routinely escalate their disputes to the point of violence.

Words aren’t violence, ok?

[NealAppeal]

Markwayne merely agrees with the left and their handlers in the media who mocked the incident. Any apologies there?

[Moo Cow]

Clearly the most qualified man in the country to take that job.

[MWAocdoc]

"we shouldn't settle political questions with violence"

Sorry, Brother Rand, but this kind of depends on the political question to be settled. For example, the American colonists settled the political question of "taxation without representation" with a bloody war which, fortunately, we won. The Union settled the political question of slavery and secession with a bloody war which, fortunately, ended slavery.

[Square = Circle]

What if the political question is "you're my neighbor and I find your political views annoying?"

[MWAocdoc]

Correct for fifteen points, Square! You move on to the "lightning" round!

[MollyGodiva]

Mullin is a violent racist fascist. Trump would have it no other way. The Senate will confirm him anyhow.

[Neutral not Neutered]

Rand is an island and he makes sure you recognize that. Sadly he accomplishes nothing but distraction.

[Chinny Chin Chin]

he accomplishes nothing but distraction

so, a bog-standard libertarian?

[Neutral not Neutered]

Sadly

[Bruce D]

It's when they accomplish something that they're dangerous.

[Marshal]

Members of the Senate should not routinely escalate their disputes to the point of violence.

Are we all cosplaying that Mullin engaged in violence toward Paul? Or was it part of the editorial meeting this morning that everyone is just going to pretend that's true and if anyone notices accuse them of supporting violence?

[Square = Circle]

Are we all cosplaying that Mullin engaged in violence toward Paul?

No, but some are accurately pointing out that Mullin expressed unambiguous approval of the violence that was done to Paul on account of Paul's disloyalty to the Party.

[Agammamon]

That is only allowed in the Democrat Party.

[Square = Circle]

Not anymore, apparently.

[Marshal]

Mullin expressed unambiguous approval of the violence

Did he? The quote I saw said he understood why the guy did it. That's not unambiguous support. If there was a quote expressing that why wasn't it included in the article?

[Square = Circle]

Yet Mullin previously said that Paul is a "freaking snake" and that "I understand completely why his neighbor did what he did."

* * *

Mullin very specifically declined to apologize. "I am not apologizing for pointing out your character," he said.

I'm sorry - I'm just not seeing the ambiguity here.

[Marshal]

He's unambiguously not apologizing. But since the comment quoted doesn't unambiguously support violence how can refusing to apologize change that?

[Square = Circle]

But since the comment quoted doesn't unambiguously support violence how can refusing to apologize change that?

"I understand completely why his neighbor did what he did."

He doesn't just "understand." He understands "completely."

I'm open to an explanation of what it is about this statement that is ambiguous in its approval of Paul's neighbor's violence, but I really am not seeing it all on my own. You're going to have to elaborate.

[Marshal]

Understanding is not support.

[Bruce D]

In this case, it is, despite Mullin's denial. Why would he call Rand a snake, and say that he understands the assailant but not that he understands Rand? Why would he even bring it up and volunteer that he "understands" the perpetrator if he didn't sympathise with the perpetrator more than he disaproves of the initiation of violence?

[Bruce D]

Markie called Rand a snake. It indicates not just "understanding" the aggressor, but sympathy.

[Jim Conley]

Mullin unambiguously approved of the murder of Ashli Babbit. He's a piece of "center-right" Uni-party shit

[Agammamon]

>"He can't bring himself to say we shouldn't settle political questions with violence," said Paul.

What is wrong with you people. My brother in Christ, Soave, we built this country on political violence and treason. What do you think the Revolutionary War was?

We ended slavery with political violence - what do you think the Civil War was.

We ended Nazism and utterly transformed Japan from the Land of Samurai to crying into body pillows with political violence.

"And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

Without the threat of violence government is powerless. Without the threat of violence we are powerless.

[damikesc]

I like how "protesters" attacking ICE agents is speech and Mullin saying something dumb is violence.

[Square = Circle]

We're not talking about Nazis. We're talking about a guy who was mowing his lawn.

[MWAocdoc]

Well, it's just an oversimplification to make the point. Politicians always speak for effect, whether it succeeds or not. I don't believe he's wrong about the nominee in this context - he obviously should not be allowed to head an already out of control federal enforcement agency. But overgeneralizing on Paul's part could backfire for all the reasons pointed out here.

[Use the Schwartz]

One step closer to these dopes assassinating each other like in the late Roman empire.

I'm here for it.

[TJJ2000]

They can both go sit in the corner with their noses against the wall.
Good grief; talk about kindergarten being in session.

[Sequel]

A US Senator who threatened to beat up a witness during an official hearing should not be approved to head an agency recently discredited for inciting violence and committing murder.

[Jeff Mason]

I would have sided with Paul in this matter had I not heard him on Clay and Buck earlier this week. It wasn’t about political violence, it was all about Paul. He recounted his injuries at least four or five times during the brief conversation as if it was Mullin who had attacked him. When asked about political violence, he dragged the conversation back to him and the injuries he suffered 9 years ago. He sounded more than a little narcissistic and a lot arrogant. I can see why Mullin, in retrospect, had little sympathy.

[Bruce D]

It was Paul who had to personally suffer the injuries. So, it was about him as well as the evils of unwarranted political violence.